It would be if it dealt with the *whole* problem. It doesn't.
If I want to get rid of garden materials, scraps of wood or larger things I have to take it to the tip or get a skip.
If I don't deal with these, then it makes a mess and inconveniences the neighbours.
But the current issue is not with size or particularly location, but one of "view" where councils refuse to acknowledge anyone has a right to a view and that removal of such view is not detrimental to the value of the property, they are now suggesting that view is indicative of house value/worth and as such, as relevant as size/space etc.
I doubt many folks will be bothered, but we have a stunning view (all be it over the Bristol chanell to llanwern steel works / Newport) but all the same, it is just another way of screwing a random selection of the community who place no more of a burden on the resources than those with more "traditional" views.
And it all comes from those bloody Americans too !!
Here here! (Hear Hear??)
And does anyone forget we've been here before? It was called window tax. What next - extra taxes for those with watches costing more than £5 from Argos, because yes, there was even a clock tax. Which we look back on as being archaic and ridiculous. After all, charging for a view???? Labour - thinking the unthinkable!
*You're* thinking the unbelievable. I know why the Mail and the Telegraph are printing such outrageous twaddle - but why are you repeating it?
The message from John Cartmell contains these words:
The previous poster was positing a tiny house, not a big one. Size doesn't appear to have much relevance to Council Tax banding and even OMV is not the whole story.
Council tax is unjust on many levels a few of which I have listed below.
It is of no consequence whether the tax payer is the owner or the tenant or whether the owners equity in the property is 100% or some negative figure.
It is of no consequence whether the tax payer has modest savings or millions in the bank. There is no relief however low the income unless the savings are minimal.
It is of no consequence that old properties cost their occupiers far more to run and maintain than new properties and there is a double whammy in that the council tax band is based not on the open market value of the property (which in any case is inflated by a foolish desire of many prospective buyers to own old property) but on what it would be worth if it were in first class condition.
There is no connection between the level of services the council provides to your immediate locality and the tax paid.
Sorry I don't agree. I believe you should pay only for the services you use, it should not be related to the value of the house. For example if you have a huge garden and want your garden waste collected then pay for this service based on the size of the collection. Why should one person in a 10 million pound house inherited from the family be forced out of it because they cannot afford the council tax? In my view everything should be metered that way you only get what you can afford and you can prioritise your spending.
Garden materials are best composted. Better for the environment in every way - and for the garden.
Must be large scraps if they won't fit in a dustbin. Which then come under the heading of commercial waste. After all, you object to paying a flat rate for rubbish collection?
Well, yes. Domestic rubbish collection is normally restricted to the day to day domestic rubbish, strangely. Think of the size of a dustcart that would be needed to take away the contents of the average skip. ;-)
Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.
No. But I do believe in choice without penalty.
Of course. In my original comment, I did say that I thought that it was reasonable for those with the ability to pay to effectively subsidise those with less ability to pay.
Like healthcare, I think that it should be handled through a voucher system whereby the state or local authority provides vouchers to all users of services that are adequate to fund it.
However, those who wish to supplement via cash, insurance or other financial vehicles should be able to do so in educational or healthcare facilities of their choice.
As it is today, there are choice limitations and tax hits for such choices. I don't think that that is reasonable.
Are you willing to pay the additional costs of such a system and do you appreciate that it will demolish the very best of the system we have at the moment?
Healthcare? Best go socialist. Cuba has a far lower infant mortality rate than the USA.
My local authority provides (and empties!) a separate wheely-bin for garden waste. For any bulky stuff I just phone them and they collect within a few days (usually the day after 'normal' bin day).
Generally true, although not all material is suitable for that. My options are to deliver to the tip, get a skip or buy special sacks at the council offices. None of these are convenient.
Why? I haven't obtained them through commercial endeavour.
Understood. What I'd like to have is a single, convenient solution for all rubbish that I can pay for as I use it. The annoyance is one bit here, one bit there and so on, and largely at the discretion of whether the bin men decide they want to take something away or not.
Either the local authority should provide a solution for all of the problem or none of it.
It does puzzle me why the Council charge (through the Council Tax) something like £4.60 a week to leave my wheelie bin unemptied for three weeks, strew rubbish all over the garden, and not put the wheelie bins back in the bin store properly when they have emptied them, and chanrge at least a tenner for a "special uplift" (pensioners and fridges free) while Tesco can deliver as much (or as little) shopping as I want, at a time I want, for a fiver, and they even carry it upstairs for me.
Considering Tesco supply almost all my domestic waste in the first place, they would seem ideally placed to dispose of it.
When it comes to commercial waste, the council are much more energetic, running bin lorries well into the night. But commercial waste is a competitive business.
Owain
You pay for the bags when you buy them, is how all the schemes I've seen work.
Oh dear. Brief history lesson, old boy:
---------------------- "31 December 1695 The window tax was imposed in Britain, which resulted in many windows being bricked up, some of which survive to this day. It was not the only wealth tax to be attempted in Britain. Others were the Chimney Tax, the Clock Tax, and (everyone's favorite) the Stamp Act."
----------------------
I have no idea what "twaddle" you are referring to, as I read neither. Please enlighten (but don't be slapping an enlightenment tax on me now!)
I am presuming it is the political bias of the papers in question attempting to cause more outrage against the current government which possibly said papers are not wholly devoted to.
but I may be wrong as I don't have a clue about politics or papers.
:¬)
That's reasonably joined up and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
This what you mean?
Compare and contrast:
I did and do.
I pay money to the local authority based in some way loosely on property value. That has little or nothing to do with usage of the education and not a lot more to do with ability to pay.
I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for that.
There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to choose an alternative.
Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides health insurance as a benefit.
There's never a good reason to go socialist. It is against the natural order of things.
No such thing. Your choice penalises many others. Not that those who espouse the madness of "choice" in education give a damn about that.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.